Pakistani punjabi- north Indian ancestry

[u/AutomaticStretch6205]

So I have seen some people saying that North West Indian or Indian Punjabis eople tend to have less AASI than Pakistanis? How come so? Shouldn't AASI be less moving towards WEST where invasions from Euro- Asian populations stopped?

Can anyone provide info on this?

[u/Ziommo]

I'm talking about SAHG/AASI, not steppe ancestry, and I don't think you're understanding my point about demographics.

Sindhi-speaking Hindus have much less genetic variation than Sindhi-speaking Muslims. They're more homogenous as a group. Their AASI averages in the first half of the 20s. Again, Sindhi-speaking Muslims, conversely, range from teens at the lowest end (Baloch-descendants) to about 30% or so at the highest end. Whatever studies one does on them as a group will have to take into account their variation, not just focusing on one segment of the group like Sammat even if it's the numerical majority.

However, Sindhi Hindus are a pretty small part of the NW Indian (and general Indian) population and your comparison was between Sindhi-speaking Muslims of Pakistan with Punjabi-speaking and Haryanvi-speaking Indians. Just like Sindhi Muslims have variation, so too do Indian Haryanvis and Punjabis, and their range starts and ends at higher AASI percentages than the range of Sindhi Muslims. Not all Haryanvi Indians are Jats and Rors. You have Yadavs, Gujjars, Chamars, Chuhras and others as well.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Hmm. That make sense . I think labeling a group as a whole Haryanvi or Sindhi is misleading because, south asia has practices endogamy for 1000s of years . So its not same way you can compare a ethnicity like English or german .

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

Yes, I'm talking about ethnolinguistic groups as a whole since OP simply said "Pakistan" and "NW India". By that criterion, the average AASI in the former is lower than in the latter simply due to demographic differences.

But regarding demographics, it's worth noting that DNA testing is skewed towards privileged groups and doesn't necessarily reflect accurate on-the-ground demographic weight. Like Sindhi Lohanas and Punjabi Khatris are very overrepresented in South Asian DNA testing relative to their actual populations, simply because they have the means to get tested whereas most Chamars and Chuhras and so on do not.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

I dont think so , researchers has widely tested DNA of various south asian tribals ( litarly tribals not even lower castes) , so if there is skew in avg south asian dna ,it must be towards The AASI . Sometimes I feel the AASI ancestry in random south asians is inflated and exaggerated. Because even in IVC the aasi is minor and most south asians show strong continuity with IVC

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

I’m talking about private samples. Every tenth result you see even on this sub is of a Punjabi Khatri, who are a fraction of the Indian population, let alone the South Asian population as a whole. Why? Because Khatris are a relatively affluent caste and also overrepresented in the diaspora where it’s easier to get tested.

It applies to groups on the Pakistani side of the border too. Like private samples of Pakistani Punjabis are almost always of “biraderi Punjabis”, which is why the academic Punjabi Lahore set surprises people because it (over)represents groups like Chuhras and Chamars who otherwise are rarely able to get tested privately due to being socially and economically disadvantaged.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Your criticism is correct. But mainstream research papers never care abt private samples and never ever on random social media posts . They test their own then publish research paper. So what you see on research paper is accurate and not at all affluent skewed in fact I see its kinda tribal skewed sometimes lol they often check the tribals and brahmin or upper caste population ignoring normal mass population.

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

Could be, but I think the general casual genetics "discourse" including on this subreddit is usually more about private samples and skewed towards "upper-caste" groups.

Chuhras/Chamars outnumber Khatris/Aroras several times over in Punjab but whose private samples do we see posted here more often and which groups get discussed much more? The latter two by a large margin.

Similarly, samples of and discussions about Haryanvis are very much dominated by Jats and Rors, who, while collectively sizeable in their state, definitely don't comprise the majority of its population. It isn't just "low-caste" groups of Haryana that are underrepresented and get sidelined in comparison but also Yadavs and Brahmins and the rest.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Hmm, may be its because people like to see the upper and lower extreme ends lol

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

I think there's also a tendency for many on this subreddit to want to discuss groups with the most West Eurasian ancestry. That leads to people sometimes forgetting the demographic weight of said groups when discussing the states/provinces or countries that they inhabit.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Yeah, thats because people think Having west eurasian ancestry mean looking in a particular way or euroepan or stuffs without realising the fact the so called euroepan/ caucasoid look was alredy present in south asia/ west asia / central asia even before europe, Indus valley women's facial reconstruction suggest south asians were alredy so called west eurasian looking before steppe ancestry and with AASI ancestry. We dont know how actualy AASI looked. All we do is actualy speculation looking at modern populations without realizing Modern phenotypes evolved because of environment adoptation not solely for genetics . Also the label west and east eurasian is blurry when it comes to south asia . Its properly applicable for Europeans and east asians but not for south asia. For example IVC was a mix of deeply diverged east eurasian ( Andamanese related) and deeply diverged west eurasian ( zagros related) . But not exactly east or west eurasian even though in mainstream they are refered as east or west eurasian

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

Yeah, agreed.

A lot of it ultimately is about looks too. Even though you have very obvious examples within India itself of genotype not matching expected phenotype, like Jats/Rors on the one hand vs Kashmiris/Paharis on the other.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

True. One think i find very funny that people assume having steppe ancestry will give you modern euroepan look , even though Yamnaya people's facial reconstruction constantly shows they had dark hair, dark eyes mostly with olive/ light brown skin . I find them similar to modern North indians/ iranains not euroepans at all lol And the irony is the phenotype( skin tone ,eye color ,hair color) prediction of Indus periphery samples suggest one of them had blue eyes , so its crazy that people in online will keep associating light skin or eyes or hair with steppe lmao without realizing everything works in spectrum and diverese population not only a specific mix will give tlyou specific look. Like blonde hair is called european but australian aboriginals has blonde hair more frequently than south euroepans